The Issue The issues requiring adjudication in this cause concern whether the Respondent's license as a veterinarian in the State of Florida should be revoked, suspended or other discipline imposed for alleged violations of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes. Those violations involve alleged cruelty to animals treated by the Respondent and whether his treatment and behavior toward those animals amounted to fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine. Also at issue are charges in the Complaint concerning whether the Respondent violated the enumerated sections of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes, involving being convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the practice of veterinary medicine. It must also be determined whether the Respondent, with regard to some of the animals treated and named in the Complaint, failed to maintain his veterinary medical records in accordance with the related and enumerated subsections of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes, and the related rule. Finally, if the charges, or any of them, are substantiated, the question of a recommended penalty must be addressed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ("Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 474, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, holding license number VM0000710. The Respondent maintains his practice at 820 Creighton Road, Pensacola, Florida 32504. The Respondent is the owner and managing veterinarian of Creighton-Davis Animal Hospital located at that address. Counts One through Three of the Administrative Complaint relate to the allegations that the Respondent intentionally, cruelly and repeatedly struck a dog named "Peaches" belonging to Cynthia Barrera, which had been brought to him for veterinary care. It is alleged that on or about October 9, 1986, after the alleged cruel treatment, the dog was found dead in the Respondent's clinic by a staff member. It is alleged that he told the owner of the dog that the dog had "escaped", knowing that story to be untrue. A former staff member employed by the Respondent, Tina Lyttle, submitted an affidavit to the Santa Rosa County Animal Protection Officer, Ms. Betty Simms, from which sprang the charges concerning the dog named "Peaches". She and the Respondent were the only ones present in the examining room on the date in question. "Peaches" had been brought in by its owner to be shaved; and, because the dog had a propensity to bite, he was required to be sedated for the procedure. Tina Lyttle maintained that the Respondent dragged the dog into the room by its leash, slung it up on the examining table, and ran the leash down through the drain hole at one end of the table to hold the dog's head down close to the surface of the table, to restrain the dog. She contends that the Respondent told her to hold the dog's hindquarters and hold a vein so that he could inject the anesthesia. He kept missing the vein and tried in both back and front legs to locate a vein into which he could inject the anesthesia. Tina Lyttle contends that the dog began growling, and the Respondent became enraged and began striking the dog on the back-legs, hips and rib cage and snatched the dog by the hair and slung him off the table which resulted in the dog being hung by the neck with his head and muzzle on the table and his body suspended in the air. She maintains that the Respondent then struck the dog on the muzzle with his fist and that the dog became unconscious due to choking as a result of this alleged handling. She also states that the Respondent was silent during this alleged episode. She then contended that the Respondent and she had an argument about his treatment of the dog and that she "stormed" out of the clinic to the kennel area. The Respondent, a short while later, went out and discussed the matter with her and attempted to placate her and get her to come back and assist him further. She came back inside, saw that the dog was already anesthetized and unconscious and, ultimately, shaved the dog at the Respondent's instruction. She left work that day and missed work the next day. She came back two days later and inquired of the Respondent and staff members about the dog. She alleges that some days later, staff member, Pat Guinn informed her that the dog had died at the Respondent's facility. Pat Guinn claimed in her testimony, that she found the dog dead in his pen and that the Respondent instructed her to put him in a bag and that she delivered the body of the dog to the Respondent and Ms. Vetitoe, another client of the Respondent. She testified that the Respondent directed her to put the body of the dog in Ms. Vetitoe's truck, or else the Respondent put the dog in Ms. Vetitoe's truck, (her testimony is inconsistent here) for the purpose of Ms. Vetitoe removing the dog from the premises and burying it. The Respondent describes the incident involving "Peaches" in quite a different light. The Respondent acknowledges that the dog was there to be shaved and otherwise cared for at the request of its owner, Ms. Berrera. He and Tina Lyttle were holding the dog on the table, as described. That is, the dog's head was cinched down close to the table by placing the leash through the drain hole in the table. This is accepted, proper veterinary practice in order to help restrain the dog and prevent the dog from injuring the veterinarian or his staff. As the Respondent was attempting to locate a vein whereby he could inject the anesthesia, during which time Tina Lyttle was holding the dog's hindquarters, the dog became belligerent, growling and suddenly bit the Respondent on his left forearm. The bite was a severe one going all the way through the upper part of the Respondent's forearm. The Respondent was in extreme pain and bleeding and struck at the dog, attempting to get him to release his hold. The dog's jaws were locked on the Respondent's forearm and ultimately, the Respondent acknowledges that he had to pry the dog's jaws open with a screwdriver to get him to release, all of which caused the Respondent extreme pain and blood loss. During this episode, Tina Lyttle became angry at the Respondent, shouted at him and remonstrated with him for hitting the dog and stormed out of the clinic. Another staff member assisted the Respondent in sedating the dog and preparing him to be shaved. The Respondent proceeded even though he had to stop and render first aid for his wounded forearm. Later he went outside and attempted to calm Ms. Lyttle down and finally got her to go back to work, although during their discussion she assaulted him by throwing him against the kennel building in a rage. Although the Respondent testified unequivocally that the episode occurred in this manner and that, indeed, the dog had bitten all the way through his forearm, both witnesses for the Petitioner, Tina Lyttle and Pat Guinn, denied that the biting incident occurred. The Respondent's version of events is corroborated, however, by Lt. Loria of the U.S. Marine Corps., who was a client of the Respondent and had just brought his dog in for care. The Respondent had noticed Lt. Loria on the premises and asked him to come to the examining room so that he could show him what had occurred. Lt. Loria observed, immediately after the injury to the Respondent's forearm, the wound caused by the dog, who was still in the room. This observation was made with the Respondent spontaneously telling Lt. Loria in no uncertain terms about the manner in which the dog had bitten him. Lt. Loria observed the wound in the Respondent's forearm and indicated that a pencil or fountain pen could have been stuck through the fang wounds. Lt. Loria testified by deposition in this proceeding and corroborated the Respondent's version. The Respondent had a noticeable scar from the wound on his arm and demonstrated it at hearing. It was observable during the investigatory process as well. The circumstances surrounding the death of the dog, described by Tina Lyttle and Pat Guinn, are also disputed by the Respondent and Ms. Vetitoe. Tina Lyttle maintained that she was informed by staff member, Pat Guinn, several days after the incident, that the dog had died on the premises; and then Pat Guinn testified concerning the manner in which she alleged that the Respondent, herself and Ms. Vetitoe arranged for the burial of the dog. The Respondent describes this incident differently. The Respondent stated that on the day after the biting altercation with the dog, he went to the dog's cage and observed that he needed exercise and needed to get out to relieve himself. Consequently, he snapped a leash on the dog and lead him through the clinic to exercise him outdoors. As he neared the patient waiting room, the dog got the leash in his mouth and bit through it, thus, getting loose. As luck would have it, a patient came in the front door of the clinic just at that moment and the dog rushed outside before the Respondent could stop him and escaped off the premises. The Respondent rushed outside, went into the field adjacent to the clinic looking for the dog and called him, to no avail. He then returned to the clinic in order to get into his truck and ride around in the neighborhood in an attempt to apprehend the dog. He maintains that he then met Carla Fowler, another staff member, who was returning from lunch nearby, told her of the dog's escape and enlisted her help in looking for the dog, instructing her to get into her car and also ride around the area in an attempt to locate the dog. The Respondent was never successful in finding the dog and ultimately bought the owner another dog of the same type, color and description and replaced the animal at his own expense. The owner and her children were satisfied with this arrangement and made no complaint concerning the Respondent's treatment of the dog or the unfortunate loss of "Peaches" and his replacement with another dog. The testimony of Ms. Vetitoe corroborates this version of events related by the Respondent. Ms. Vetitoe, by Pat Guinn's own admission, was present when the alleged disposal arrangement, related by Pat Guinn, was made. Ms. Vetitoe owns some thirty-four (34) dogs herself. She has been a client of the Respondent for many years. She testified that on no occasion has she ever buried a dog. She is an ardent animal lover and when her dogs expire, she has them cremated and their remains placed in urns. She testified that it was absolutely untrue that the Respondent or Pat Guinn had requested her help or assisted her in disposing of the dog. Her testimony is unequivocal that that episode never occurred and that she had never seen the dog "Peaches" which Pat Guinn and Tina Lyttle alleged to have died on the premises. Finally, in this regard, the testimony of Carla Fowler also corroborates the Respondent's and Ms. Vetitoe's testimony regarding the events surrounding the dog's demise. Carla Fowler acknowledged that when she was returning from lunch nearby, she saw the Respondent running through the field adjacent to the clinic looking for the dog. When he came back to the vicinity of the clinic, he told her that he was looking for "Peaches" and that the dog had escaped. She stated that he enlisted her help in finding the dog. The Respondent's, Ms. Vetitoe's and Lt. Loria's versions of the events surrounding the care, treatment and death of the dog "Peaches" are accepted. The testimony of Tina Lyttle and Pat Guinn concerning this incident is rejected in its entirety as incredible for the reasons related above and which will be treated more definitively, infra. Paragraphs 15 through 24 of the Administrative Complaint, including, from paragraphs 19 through 24, Counts Four, Five and Six, relate to an alleged incident involving a dog named "Star", belonging to Wanda Bruner. The dog was brought to the Respondent's clinic for veterinary care apparently consisting of a general examination, a flea dip and bath. It is alleged in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Complaint that on or about September 5, 1986, the Respondent intentionally, cruelly and repeatedly struck the dog "Star" with his hands and bit the dog and that he intentionally and cruelly struck the dog on the head with a hose nozzle. Carla Fowler was the employee who assisted the Respondent in examining and caring for "Star" on the dates in question. The Respondent had placed the dog on the examining table at the outset of the episode of September 5, 1986, apparently for purposes of examination. Carla Fowler relates that the dog was "real nervous" and "I don't know if it was jerking or something, and Dr. Monroe hit it on the head and then on the rib cage and the dog got even more nervous. And then Dr. Monroe stooped down and bit the dog on the nose. And then the dog urinated all over the table". Ms. Fowler then testified that the Respondent told her to remove the dog from the room or words to that effect and then told her the next day to bring the dog in so they could give it a bath. He asked her to assist him in giving the dog a bath because he was afraid the dog would put up fight, in her words. She testified that the dog was trying to squirm along the side of the tub and the Respondent, who had a water hose in his hand, hit the dog on top of the head with the water hose nozzle, broke the head open, causing bleeding. She became upset with the Respondent's action, according to her testimony, and also testified that her husband walked in the door when the incident happened. Although her husband testified that he observed the incident where the Respondent is alleged to have struck the dog on the head with the hose nozzle, it is found that that incident did not occur and that he was not in a position to have observed it. Photographs and the evidence, consisting of the Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, coupled with the Respondent's testimony, are accepted as more credible and establish that the Respondent and Ms. Fowler were standing between the door and the bathtub bathing the dog in such a position that anyone coming in the back door, such as Ms. Fowler's husband, would have been unable to observe the alleged incident. The testimony of Ms. Fowler and her husband, as well as that of Pat Guinn, (itself, internally inconsistent in that, in her deposition, she stated that she observed the "hose striking incident" and in her testimony at hearing, admitted that she had not observed it), is rejected as incredible and unworthy of belief. The testimony of the Respondent is accepted. In this regard, the Hearing Officer is mindful of the testimony of Wanda Bruner, "Star"'s owner, who established that, indeed, stitches were observed by her in the head of the dog and that the Respondent told her that he had removed a cyst and stitched up the small incision involved. The testimony of the Respondent concerning this incident, as corroborated or explained by the testimony of Wanda Bruner, is accepted; and it is found that no acts of cruelty were perpetrated by the Respondent against the dog named "Star". Paragraphs 25 through 28 of the Administrative Complaint concern the dog named "Chipper" owned by Lorraine Purcell. Ms. Purcell brought the dog to the Respondent on approximately April 18, 1986 for a checkup and general examination. The Respondent determined that the dog's anal glands were infected, and he recommended to Ms. Purcell that surgery be performed to remove the anal glands. Ms. Purcell agreed to this procedure, and the Respondent performed the surgery removing the anal glands and stitching up the incisions. Some two or three days later, Ms. Purcell telephoned the Respondent's office concerning the release of her dog and was informed that the dog had suffered complications attendant to his "bothering" or chewing the stitches and that the dog needed to remain a few more days. She agreed to this and contacted the Respondent's office at least once more concerning when she should retrieve her dog. The Respondent conversed with her directly on April 23, 1986 and told her that he had had to re-operate on the dog because the dog had chewed or bothered his stitches such that surgical repair of the resulting wound was necessary on the dog's left side, that is, the left side of the anal opening. Upon learning that the dog had a large open hole or wound on the left side of his anus, Ms. Purcell became upset with the Respondent, came to the office and removed the dog from his care against his recommendation and sometime shortly thereafter, took the dog to another veterinarian, Dr. Clinton Chew. Dr. Chew described the large, open wound on the left side of the dog's anus as involving damage to the sphincter muscle with the effect that the dog was unable to control its bowel movements, and therefore, was dripping feces uncontrollably. Dr. Chew was unable to determine if the wound was caused by the dog's self-mutilation of the earlier incision but stated that it could have been the result of self-mutilation. He did not know how long the dog was in its owner's care after it had been removed from the care of the Respondent before being brought to him, but felt that it was approximately a day. He ventured no opinion about whether any self-mutilation could have occurred after the dog was removed from the Respondent's care and before being brought to him. Dr. Chew advised Ms. Purcell that two courses of treatment were available; healing by granulation, that is, the natural healing process for closing up the hole as small as possible before surgery; or immediate surgical intervention to try to close the open wound. Upon his advice, Ms. Purcell elected to allow some time for the natural healing process to close up the hole as small as possible with a view toward trying surgery at a later time if that was still necessary. After leaving the dog in Dr. Chew's care for some days, with the healing process started, Ms. Purcell or her husband retrieved the dog from his care and brought the dog home. The dog suffered at home because he was incontinent and dripping fecal material, such that he became very bothered by flies and could not come into the house as he formerly had. Because the dog was miserable and Ms. Purcell and her husband felt that his quality of life had severely deteriorated and because they were constantly having to clean up after the dog, she and her husband decided to have the dog put to sleep. Mr. Purcell, therefore, brought the dog back to Dr. Chew and upon their own initiative, instructed Dr. Chew to have the dog put to sleep. Dr. Chew testified that that was not his recommendation and that the Purcells had not instructed him to try to effect further repair of the wound surgically. In fact, by June 26, 1986, when the dog was brought in to be put to sleep, the natural healing process had substantially closed the hole although the dog was still incontinent because of the destruction to the sphincter muscle. In any event, without attempting further repair surgically, the dog was put to sleep on or about that date. Neither Dr. Chew nor any other witness established what the appropriate, professional veterinary standard of care in this situation might be. In any event, Dr. Chew testified that the portion of the incision which was not damaged, that is, on the dog's right side, was properly done. He was thus unable to say that the surgery was improperly or incompetently done or that it was unnecessary, nor did any other witness. Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Administrative Complaint concern an incident allegedly occurring on October 30, 1986 when the Respondent attempted emergency veterinary care for a dog named "Dusty" belonging to Mr. Gary Ethridge. Dusty was brought in earlier on the morning in question very ill, dehydrated and cold. Pat Guinn or others on the Respondent's staff called him at home and told him that the dog had been brought in, and he told them that he would come into the office "in a little while" to see about him. They did not tell him that the dog was an emergency case. When he finally arrived at his office around 9:45 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., he realized that it was an emergency case and that the dog was in serious condition. He then attempted to perform a transfusion and used his German short-haired pointer, "Shadow", as the donor dog. As he had both dogs lying on the table, attempting to use his transfusion equipment, he had his face close to Shadow's head. He told his own dog, Shadow, to be still or be quiet in a loud voice which startled the dog and the dog whirled around and bit the Respondent on the nose, severely lacerating his nose, causing it to bleed copiously. Pat Guinn was the attending staff member at this procedure. The Respondent had Pat Guinn hold something to his nose to staunch the blood flow while he continued to attempt to render care to the severely-ill Dusty. Ultimately, because he was in extreme pain and losing blood from the wound in his nose, he was unable to complete the procedure and instructed Pat Guinn to take Dusty to Dr. Andress, a nearby veterinarian, to secure his care while the Respondent went to the emergency room to have his wound treated. This procedure was followed, but unfortunately the dog expired shortly after arriving at Dr. Andress' office. Pat Guinn testified that the dog "Dusty" came into the office early on that morning very ill and very cold. At about 8:15 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., she called the Respondent and told him of the dog's arrival. She maintains that she told him that morning over the telephone that it was a grave emergency. In any event, she testified that she and Carla Fowler put the dog on the table and placed warm water bottles around him and covered him up, awaiting the Respondent's arrival. She testified that the Respondent did not get to the clinic until 10:30 a.m. and got mad at her when he saw the condition of the dog, saying that it was an emergency and that they should have called him. She claims to have reminded the Respondent that she had told him that it was an emergency when she called him early that morning, shortly after 8:00 a.m. In any event, she testified that the Respondent, in attempting to establish the transfusion, became agitated and bit his dog, "Shadow", on the ear, whereupon Shadow bit him on the nose. Pat Guinn is not worthy of belief. Ms. Vetitoe, a confirmed animal lover, observed the procedure being performed on "Dusty", with the dog "Shadow" as the donor dog, and observed what transpired when the Respondent was bitten on the nose by Shadow. She corroborated the Respondent's own testimony upon which the above Findings of Fact are based to the effect that Shadow bit him on the nose, but he never bit any dog. Pat Guinn was a disgruntled employee. She was fired in February of 1987 by the Respondent and shortly thereafter, executed the affidavit upon which this prosecution was, in part, based. She testified that the Respondent had held a gun on her and threatened her on three different occasions and threatened to kill her and her children. She maintains that she told the Deputy Sheriff, Officer DeLeon, of this when she called him to report these incidents, as he put it, "Just for the record". In fact, Officer DeLeon testified that she had never reported the Respondent threatening her with a gun, holding a gun on her or pointing a gun at her. She also acknowledged in her testimony and in a deposition that she had been treated for stress and for a "nervous breakdown". Even Carla Fowler, another witness for the Petitioner, acknowledged that Pat Guinn had been known to exaggerate the truth. I find Pat Guinn's testimony too inconsistent, false and influenced by her hostility toward the Respondent, due to her discharge and, doubtless, to other altercations with him, to justify accepting it as probative of any facts in dispute. Paragraphs 35 through 37 of the Administrative Complaint charge that the Respondent inflicted cruelty intentionally and repeatedly on a cat named "Leo," belonging to Judith Gahimer, which had been brought to the Respondent for veterinary care. The cat "Leo" suffered from a hematoma in one ear caused by an injury (blood blister). The Respondent performed a "zepp" procedure which involves slitting the hematoma area and inserting a stainless steel ring so that the ring can move and prevent the wound from closing up, thus, enabling it to drain properly while it is healing. This is an accepted procedure for this type of injury, as acknowledged by Dr. Cordell, the Petitioner's expert witness. In this particular animal, however, for some reason, the incision did not heal properly. This was possibly because the cat kept irritating the incision. In any event, the cat had to be brought back to the Respondent on a number of occasions for cleansing of the wound and otherwise caring for it. On one of these occasions, Tina Lyttle assisted the Respondent in caring for the cat. The cat was on the examining table, and Tina Lyttle was assisting in restraining the cat while the Respondent treated it. Tina Lyttle stated that the cat became irritated and growled and hissed at the Respondent. She testified that she then observed the Respondent hit the cat approximately three times on the head with his hemostats and no- where else on the cat's body. Judith Gahimer, the cat's owner, believed that the cat's hips had been injured because the cat walked with a limp at some point after the Respondent was through treating him and was unable to jump anymore. She believed the cat's hip to be fractured. It was not demonstrated, however, even by the testimony of Tina Lyttle; that any permanent injury to the cat occurred during the Respondent's care. In fact, in her own testimony, Tina Lyttle, herself, was holding the cat with her hands in the area of his hips and shoulders to restrain him on the examining table. Any permanent injury to the cat was not caused by the Respondent. The cat's owner was unable to offer any definitive explanation for how the cat may have been injured or when. The Respondent vehemently denies striking the cat, as described by Tina Lyttle. I accept the testimony of the Respondent over that of Tina Lyttle concerning the "Leo" complaint. Shortly after the "Peaches" incident, Tina Lyttle was discharged by the Respondent as a result of a verbal and physical altercation he had with her. The Respondent offered to rehire her if she apologized for her behavior. The totality of the evidence of record reveals, however, that she harbors a great deal of resentment against the Respondent. Her bias against him is definitely demonstrated by the fact, as established by other prosecution witnesses, that she was the person who orchestrated the gathering of complaint affidavits against the Respondent, contacting Betty Simms of the Santa Rosa County Humane Society (after the Escambia County Humane Society refused to pursue the matters involved in this Administrative Complaint) and was the prime movant in getting Ms. Simms and the Santa Rosa County Humane Society to institute both the criminal and administrative proceedings against the Respondent. Her testimony is not credible nor worthy of belief. Paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the Administrative Complaint concern a spaniel by the name of "Beau". These paragraphs, which include Count Eight of the Administrative Complaint, allege that the Respondent, on a date unknown, was observed striking and biting "Beau". The incident involving "Beau" purportedly involved the Respondent treating the dog by cleaning his ears. The Respondent's assistant at the time, Peggy Maggard, helped with this procedure. Ms. Maggard testified that she was holding the dog on the examining table while the Respondent was cleaning his ears, which were apparently rather sensitive. She testified that the dog tried to pull away when his ears were being examined and that the Respondent hit the dog on top of the head and then struck him on top of the head again with his fist. He became angry, according to Ms. Maggard, and jerked the dog away from her and bit the dog on the nose, severely enough to leave a gash, causing the gash to bleed. Ms. Maggard testified that at this point she grabbed the Respondent by the throat and admonished him not to treat the dog so. She claims that the bite by the Respondent to the dog's nose caused a gash in approximately the pattern of the Respondent's teeth, or approximately one and a quarter inches wide, causing the wound to bleed and that the blows to the top of the head left a noticeable lump on top of the head which a person examining the dog would be able to feel. She testified that the dog's owner would be able to readily notice both injuries. The dog's owner, Henry Savelle, had used the Respondent for "Beau"'s care and treatment for a number of years, always finding the care and treatment rendered to his dog to be appropriate. Mr. Savelle retrieved his dog from the Respondent's care approximately the next day following the purported incident. He noticed no injuries whatever to the dog. He would have been able to notice such injuries inasmuch as he is frequently in close contact with his dog. The alleged incident concerning the dog "Beau" is supposed to have occurred, according to Peggy Maggard, in 1983, approximately six years before this proceeding. Ms. Maggard did not report this incident until May 14, 1987, some four and one- half years after it occurred. She did not report it until she conferred with Betty Simms, the Santa Rosa County Humane Society member and Animal Control Officer and only did this after learning that others who had worked for the Respondent had made complaints to Ms. Simms. The witness testified that she could not recall how she learned that others had made complaints and purported not to recall whether she had talked to other complainants about the Respondent and the care and treatment he had rendered to the various animals involved in those complaints. It is singular to observe, however, that she was purportedly able to recall clearly all of the events surrounding the incident allegedly occurring with the dog "Beau," even though it allegedly occurred some four and one-half years earlier than the events she purportedly cannot recall concerning how she came to learn of the complaints against the Respondent, the investigation by Animal Control Officer Simms, why she came to make her report in May of 1987, nor whether she conferred with the other complainants before or after making her report concerning "Beau". She did state, however, that upon reporting the "Beau" incident to Betty Simms, the Animal Control Officer, she already knew that others had made complaints, meaning the other former employees of the Respondent. Peggy Maggard, like the other former employees of who made complaints which engendered this prosecution, had had disagreements and altercations with the Respondent which resulted in her being discharged twice from his employ. The Respondent, for unexplained reasons, as in the case of some of the other employees, rehired her after discharging her for the first time. In any event, it is apparent, from the totality of the circumstances concerning the manner in which Ms. Maggard described this alleged incident and the manner in which it came to the attention of the Petitioner through the reporting of it, much belatedly, by Ms. Maggard, after she learned of the efforts by former employees to report incidents concerning the Respondent, that Ms. Maggard harbors a significant amount of resentment against the Respondent. She is a disgruntled former employee. This leads the Hearing Officer to the conclusion, considering circumstances of her employment, history, the purported nature of the "Beau" incident, and the apparent contact that the various former employees, including Ms. Maggard, had with each other concerning the reporting of these incidents, and the manner of reporting them, that Ms. Maggard fabricated this incident It is simply incredible that the Respondent would have bitten the dog on the nose, and Ms. Maggard was certainly not a convincing witness capable of establishing that fact. Perhaps the Respondent said it best when he testified, without contradiction that, at the behest of the Department, he had taken a battery of psychiatric tests and had "passed with flying colors". It is singular to note in reviewing the totality of testimony and evidence in this proceeding that the Respondent is the only witness who was subjected to and passed such psychiatric examinations. The Respondent vehemently denied that this incident occurred. His testimony is credible and accepted. The incident did not occur. The "medical records complaint" concerns paragraphs 41 through 47 of the Administrative Complaint. In this regard, it is alleged that on or about July 23, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by the Petitioner, through its investigator, Mr. Clum, and requested to provide treatment records for the animals, "Peaches, "Chipper", "Babe" and "Geoff", pets he had allegedly treated. The Respondent was presented with a "authorization" to release the records of each of the above- named animals, and is charged with failing or refusing to release those records to the Department's investigator, Mr. Clum, in alleged violation of Rule 21X-18.02, Florida Administrative Code. Indeed, the Respondent did fail to give the investigator those records. In this connection, the record evidence reveals that Tina Lyttle, in approximately February of 1987, was working at the clinic on a Sunday when the Respondent was not present. This was after the point in time when Tina Lyttle had assembled the various affidavits from employees or former employees and reported the alleged incidents to Ms. Simms. On this Sunday occasion, Ms. Lyttle called Ms. Simms; and at her behest, Ms. Simms went to the Respondent's office to make observations, take photographs and to examine the Respondent's records, which Tina Lytt1e allowed her to do. The two examined the Respondent's medical records without the Respondent's or the pet owners' authorizations. They also photographed certain records. Thereafter, on July 23, 1987, when the Respondent was asked by investigator Clum to provide the records of the four above-named animals, the Respondent attempted to do so. He went to his file cabinet where such records are kept and could not find the records. In fact, the record jackets concerning each of these animals were still in his file drawer; but the record materials contained therein were missing. The failure to supply these records to the Department's investigator was not shown to be the fault of the Respondent. He did not fail or refuse to provide the requested records. He tried to provide them. It was simply impossible because they had been removed from his files. Paragraphs 44 through 47 of the Administrative Complaint concern treatment records which the Respondent did provide at the Petitioner's request for the animals named "Leo", "Max", "Beau", and an unnamed mixed collie owned by Kimberly Rowe. It is charged in essence that the records furnished by the Respondent as to these animals failed to contain all of the information required by Rule 21X-18.02, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to the dog named "Max" and the unnamed mixed collie, leaving at issue the question of the adequacy of the records concerning the cat named "Leo" and the dog named "Beau". The Petitioner presented, as its expert witness in the field of veterinary medicine and practice, Dr. Joe Wilson Cordell, Jr. of Tallahassee, Florida. Dr. Cordell has been a veterinarian for some 17 years and was accepted as an expert in the practice of veterinary medicine. Dr. Cordell reviewed the medical records on the two named animals consisting of the Petitioner's Exhibits 84 and 85. With regard to the records concerning these two animals, Dr. Cordell did not opine that the treatment or care furnished was inadequate or did not accord with appropriate, professional veterinary medicine standards. He did observe that to some extent the records were incomplete in showing exactly what surgical procedure or other procedure might have been done, whether or not physical examinations were performed, prior to administering anesthetic, what type of anesthetic was used and the route of administration. Certain items, such as body temperature, physical examination findings, medications used, route of administration of the medications, and adequate descriptions of procedures involved were lacking from the records or, to some extent, were illegible. The ear procedure record concerning the dog "Beau," for June 23, 1983, does not contain a diagnosis. Dr. Cordell established that a diagnosis is required for such a medical record. In summary, Dr. Cordell could not tell from examining the records exactly what procedure was done regarding the ear treatment involved as to one of the animals nor were adequate record entries made regarding the results of physical examinations. He acknowledged, however, that the records probably meant a great deal more to the Respondent than they did to him inasmuch as he was unaware of the Respondent's manner of making notes. He observed that the Respondent's notes probably meant more to him than they would to anyone who examined them. Such medical records and notes are for the purpose of assuring continuity of treatment and to refresh the doctor's recollection of the status and condition of an animal which he may been treating and keeping records on for a number of years. The Respondent testified that he felt that he was making records in the manner taught at the veterinary school at Auburn where he was trained and at which his brother, who advised him concerning record-keeping, is a professor. Further, the Respondent, in an effort to improve his record keeping, prior to this prosecution, installed a $23,000.00 computer hardware and software system to help him to assure better and more adequate record-keeping. The observations of Dr. Cordell concerning the record-keeping as to the animals named "Leo" and "Beau" are accepted to the extent that they demonstrate the inadequacies in recording the observations, results of examinations, treatment details and diagnoses related to those two animals. Neither Dr. Cordell nor any other witness established, however, what the professional veterinary medicine practice standards are as to any illnesses or conditions presented and resulting treatment performed as to any of the animals referenced in the Administrative Complaint. There has been no demonstration that any care and treatment performed by the Respondent has failed to accord with any professional veterinary medicine practice standards. Thus, as to any of the animals referenced in the Administrative Complaint, there has been no showing of incompetency or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine nor has there been any demonstration of fraud, deceit or negligence in the practice of veterinary medicine. Concerning the so-called "General Complaint" appearing at paragraph 48 of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is charged with practicing veterinary medicine in a way that inflicted unnecessary pain and suffering on animals entrusted to his care and treatment which, in turn, is alleged to be misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine, as well as being beneath the minimal standard of care required of veterinarians in the State of Florida. Once again, it is found that no minimal standard of care required of veterinarians in Florida has been established of record in this proceeding. In accordance with the above Findings of Fact, it has not been established that any unnecessary pain and suffering was inflicted on any of the animals entrusted to the Respondent's care and treatment. Finally, it is true that the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of the offense of cruelty to animals, as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibit 83, the order of the circuit judge entered on July 6, 1987. The Respondent established, however, that after paying a $15,000.00 fee to his attorney, Leo Thomas, in that criminal proceeding, and vehemently insisting on a jury trial because he felt that he had not committed any misconduct, he bowed to the advice of Attorney Thomas to the effect that if he proceeded with litigating the criminal matter, it would ruin his veterinary practice due to adverse publicity. Consequently, the Respondent established that that plea was merely "a plea of convenience" and was not made because the Respondent felt or tacitly admitted any guilt of the charges involved. In fact, the circuit judge did not adjudicate him guilty and stated affirmatively in his order that he did not feel that the alleged course of conduct involved required that he should be adjudged guilty. That order does not establish any conviction or adjudication of guilt but rather, was a result of a "plea of convenience". In summary, none of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, other than the minor record keeping violations established by Dr. Cordell, have been proven in this proceeding. In reading the conflicting testimony, the Respondent's testimony and that of Ms. Vetitoe and Lt. Loria is accepted over that of the Petitioner's complaining witnesses because they are more credible and worthy of belief. The testimony of most of the Petitioner's witnesses, consisting of the former employees of the Respondent, is tainted and colored by bias and resentment against the Respondent, caused by past disagreements between him and those witnesses which, in the instance of each of them, culminated in their discharge from his employ, in some cases, multiple times. Tina Lyttle, for instance, had a number of verbal and physical altercations with the Respondent, at one point, in connection with the "Peaches incident", slamming the Respondent against the wall of the kennel or outdoor building when he went outside to attempt to calm her down from her misplaced anger resulting from the "Peaches incident". It was Tina Lyttle who conferred with the other complaining witnesses, orchestrated the complaints and secured the affidavits as to the alleged instances of animal cruelty and the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering which, were given over to Ms. Simms, the Animal Control Officer, who then proceeded to instigate both the criminal prosecution and this administrative prosecution. There is sufficient evidence of record to infer that these witnesses, who had worked for the Respondent, conferred with each other at various times in orchestrating their complaints against the Respondent, and that each of them had sufficient grounds for bias and resentment against the Respondent as disgruntled employees so as to support a finding and conclusion that these former employees fabricated the essential specifics of the story of the Respondent's alleged cruelty and improper treatment of the animals in question. This finding is supported in this record by the inconsistencies in the testimony, at various times, of some of these witnesses. Pat Guinn, for instance, in her deposition, taken prior to this proceeding, indicated that she observed the Respondent strike the dog "Star" on the head with the hose nozzle. In her testimony at hearing, she recanted and stated that she had not seen that incident. Her testimony is also inconsistent about the manner in which "Peaches" death was reported and the manner in which the dog's body was allegedly disposed of. Her testimony is simply incredible in the face of the testimony of Ms. Vetitoe, an avowed animal lover, who testified that she never buries a dog but rather, cremates all of the dogs she has ever had to die in her custody, placing the remains in urns. Her testimony concerning the Respondent threatening her with a gun on three different occasions was belied by that of Officer DeLeon, who certainly had no motive for fabrication of his testimony when he indicated that no report of her being threatened with a gun was ever made to him. He testified that she reported an alleged threat against her by the Respondent, "Just for the record". In his experience as a law enforcement officer, he testified that it is highly unusual for an employee to report such an altercation with her employer, "Just for the record". The testimony of Carla Fowler is inconsistent with that of Guinn and Lyttle concerning the question of Peaches death or disappearance. Like the other witnesses, it is found to have been guided by her resentment against the Respondent more than any righteous indignation and genuine concern for the animals in question, as evidenced by the fact, established by Ms. Vetitoe's testimony that she, herself, had had a verbal altercation with Carla Fowler. When Ms. Vetitoe brought her own dog to be cared for by Carla Fowler, she warned Ms. Fowler that the dog had a propensity bite. Ms. Fowler, supposedly an animal lover herself, responded to Ms. Vetitoe by saying that if the dog bit her, she would "knock the m f hell out of the dog", a remark and attitude which upset Ms. Vetitoe, a dog fancier and client of long standing. In summary, the testimony of these former employee witnesses is fraught with internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with the testimony of each other. Their testimony is simply not credible and worthy of belief and is found to have been fabricated with regard to the essential details concerning alleged cruelty to the animals in question. The testimony of witness Gahimer, the owner of the cat "Leo" is rejected. She did not establish that the alleged hip injury to the cat, if it occurred, was caused by the Respondent. The testimony of Tina Lyttle herself shows that no injury to the cat's hip area could have occurred during that treatment episode. The Respondent established that the Gahimer complaint was motivated by a billing dispute with the Respondent. No other pet owner had any complaints.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the pleadings and arguments of the parties, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Veterinary Medicine dismissing the entire Administrative Complaint, with the exception of the charges in paragraphs 44 and 45 concerning the records of the cat "Leo" and the dog "Beau", and that it find that the Respondent has violated Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes, derivatively, by violating Rule 21X-18.02, Florida Administrative Code, concerning those two animals. Because of the circumstances surrounding this violation, as delineated above, it is recommended that a private reprimand be accorded the Respondent for this violation. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1989.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Douglas Lyday, D.V.M., committed the violation alleged in an Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2008-055022, issued by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes. At the times material to this proceeding, Douglas S. Lyday, is and was a licensed Florida veterinarian, having been issued license number VM 6396. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Lyday’s address of record has been 964 Southwest 12th Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33486. Dr. Lyday’s Treatment Through the Professionals Resource Network. In July of 2006, a Dual Diagnosis Advocacy Contract (hereinafter referred to as the “July 2006 PRN Contract”), was entered into between Dr. Lyday and the Professionals Resource Network (hereinafter referred to as the “PRN”), whereby Dr. Lyday agreed to, among other things, undergo treatment for alcohol dependency and psychiatric issues. Consistent with the July 2006 PRN Contract, Dr. Lyday received in-patient treatment until July 26, 2006, when he was scheduled to begin out-patient treatment. On October 30, 2006, due to a failed urinalysis test, rather than entering out-patient treatment, the July 2006 PRN Contract was voided. On March 15, 2007, a second contract, titled a Dual Diagnosis Monitoring Contract, was entered into between Dr. Lyday and the PRN (hereinafter referred to as the “March 2007 PRN Contract”). Inconsistent with the terms of the March 2007 PRN Contract, Dr. Lyday failed a second urinalysis test on or about June 10, 2008. He failed additional tests in June and July 2008, and failed to report to PRN by telephone on a number of occasions. In August 2008 Dr. Lyday again entered inpatient treatment and, as a consequence, the March 2007 PRN Contract was voided. Subsequently, the PRN was informed that Dr. Lyday was no longer in in-patient treatment. The PRN therefore sent a letter by certified mail to Dr. Lyday’s address of record in August 2008. That letter requested that Dr. Lyday contact PRN in order to undergo an evaluation, followed by a third PRN contract. The letter also indicated that, if Dr. Lyday failed to comply, the matter would be referred to the Department. Dr. Lyday never received the August 2008 letter, despite the fact that it had been sent to his address of record. Having failed to contact the PRN as directed, the matter was referred to the Department. On February 3, 2009, the instant action was instituted. Ultimate Findings. The PRN and the Department have concluded that Dr. Lyday is “unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill or safety to patients by reasons of” “his alcohol dependency issues and his failure to comply with the terms of the treatment program offered by the Professionals Resource Network.” In support of the Department’s position, the following testimony, which is the only non-hearsay evidence in support of the Department’s position, was offered by Debra Troupe, Dr. Lyday’s PRN case manager: Q. Do you believe the respondent is fit to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill and safety at this point in time? A. The last contact PRN had with him, we did not believe he was able to practice [with] reasonable skill and safety. Now, we have had no contact with Dr. Lyday since mid-September 2008. In September, we asked the Department to do an emergency suspension. Lines 18-25, page 29, Transcript. Based upon Ms. Troupe’s credible testimony, the Department has proved that Dr. Lyday, as of September 2008, was unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill or safety to patients by reason of his alcohol dependency issues. The Department did not prove, however, whether Dr. Lyday continues as of the date of this de novo proceeding to be unable to practice veterinary medicine due to alcohol dependency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Douglas Lyday, D.V.M. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Douglas S. Lyday, D.V.M. 964 Southwest 12th Street Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Juanita Chastain, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence and the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent's Licensure and Practice Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a veterinarian authorized to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida under license number VM 1797. Respondent is a sole practitioner. He owns and operates the Kendall Lakes Pet Health Care Center in Dade County, Florida. Case No. 90-4549 On or about October 6, 1988, J.C. took his eight year old English Bulldog, 3/ R.C., to Respondent's office. The purpose of the visit was to have Respondent examine a lump that J.C. had discovered under R.C.'s chin while playing with the dog. Respondent had last seen R.C. a few years back when he treated him for an ear infection. Since that time R.C. had not been examined by any veterinarian. Upon approaching the dog in the examining room, Respondent noted a foul odor emanating from the dog's ears indicative of an ear infection. Furthermore, he could see that the dog's teeth had an extraordinary amount of tartar buildup and, more importantly, that the dog's lymph nodes were swollen. After palpating the dog's lymph nodes, Respondent told J.C., who was present during the examination, that it was likely that the dog had cancer 4/ and that he needed to take a blood sample from the dog. An attempt was then made to draw blood from the dog. R.C., however, in obvious discomfort, became unruly. He snarled, showed his teeth and shook his head. J.C. tried to restrain the dog by holding him down, but was unable to do so. As a result, no blood sample could be obtained. Conventional wire muzzles do not fit English Bulldogs because they are a brachycephalic or "smashed face" breed. Accordingly, in an effort to restrain R.C., Respondent tied R.C.'s mouth closed with a hospital lead. English Bulldogs tend to have congenitally small tracheas and anatomical deficiencies in the areas of their nose and throat which lead to difficulty in breathing. Consequently, caution must be exercised when muzzling this breed of dog. The practitioner should make sure that the dog is able to breath satisfactorily through its nose or that the muzzle is loose enough so that the dog can still breathe through its mouth. Unlike some English Bulldogs, R.C. was able to breath through his nose for an extended period of time, as evidenced by the fact that he slept with his mouth closed. As a general rule, tranquilizing is an attractive alternative to muzzling as a means of restraining an English Bulldog because respiratory compromise is less of a risk. The use of this method of restraint, particularly where the dog is in the advanced stages of cancer, is not free of problems, however. Whether tranquilizing or muzzling should be employed in a particular instance is a decision to be made by the practitioner based upon his assessment of the physical characteristics and condition of the dog under his care. It has not been shown that, in exercising his professional judgment to muzzle rather than to tranquilize R.C., Respondent acted in a manner inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent veterinarian would have done under like circumstances or that he engaged in conduct that fell below any minimum standard of acceptable care for veterinarians in the community. After he was muzzled, R.C. continued to struggle. J.C. was holding the dog around the head and shoulders, but was unable to control him. Respondent therefore placed a towel over R.C. to try to subdue the dog. J.C. meanwhile maintained his grip on the dog. Shortly thereafter, R.C. went limp and collapsed. Respondent picked up R.C. and carried him to a treatment table. He took a stethoscope to the dog's chest to listen for a heartbeat. Hearing none, he performed an external cardiac massage, but with no success. Respondent looked down R.C.'s throat and determined that, because R.C.'s lymph nodes were so swollen, it would not be possible to quickly pass an endotracheal tube through the dog's trachea. Respondent therefore had a member of his staff attempt to administer oxygen to R.C. by using a "face mask" device. While this technique, as a general rule, is relatively ineffective with this breed of dog, it was the best means available under the circumstances. Respondent instructed his staff to fill a syringe with epinephrine. They did so and he administered the drug to R.C. Under ideal conditions, epinephrine should not be administered before an ECG is performed to determine if epinephrine is indicated. In the instant case, however, while he had the equipment, Respondent did not have the time to perform an ECG on R.C. Throughout the time that these efforts were being made to revive R.C., an emotionally distraught J.C. was yelling and shouting at Respondent. While Respondent was unsuccessful in his efforts to resuscitate R.C., it has not been shown that these efforts were inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent veterinarian would have done under like circumstances or constituted conduct that fell below any minimum standard of acceptable care for veterinarians in the community. After R.C. was pronounced dead, J.C. did not request that an autopsy be done and therefore none was performed. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine with a high degree of medical certainty the cause of R.C.'s death. A member of Respondent's staff recorded information concerning R.C.'s visit on the dog's chart. The entries made, however, provided very little detail regarding what happened during the visit. There was no indication that a physical examination had been conducted. Furthermore, while there were notes that oxygen and "2 1/2 cc epinephrine" 5/ had been administered, the entries made did not reflect how they had been administered, nor did they indicate what other resuscitation efforts had been made. Also missing was an entry reflecting that an autopsy had neither been requested nor performed. Case No. 90-8113 On or about June 18, 1990, Detective Jerry Rodriguez of the Metro-Dade Police Department, who was working undercover at the time, met with Respondent at the Kendall Lakes Pet Health Care Center. The meeting was arranged by a confidential informant. After he was introduced to Respondent by the confidential informant, Detective Rodriguez entered into negotiations with Respondent to purchase Winstrol-V anabolic steroids. The negotiations culminated in Detective Rodriguez agreeing to buy a bottle of Winstrol-V from Respondent for $1,000. Respondent was led to believe by Detective Rodriguez that these steroids would be used for human consumption. Respondent accepted a $1,000 advance payment from Detective Rodriguez and issued him a receipt. Respondent did not fulfill his end of the bargain, nor did he ever have any intention to do so. He never made any steroids available to Detective Rodriguez, nor did he take any action, including ordering or prescribing the steroids, toward that end. 6/ A subsequent inspection of Respondent's veterinary facility conducted on or about June 18, 1990, revealed the presence of certain prescription medications that were beyond the expiration date or had obliterated labels which were missing lot numbers, manufacturers' names and addresses and expiration dates.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of maintaining inadequate medical records, in violation of Section 474.214(1)(f), as charged in the Administrative Complaint issued in Case No. 90-4549; (2) imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and placing Respondent on probation for a period of one year for this violation; and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the Administrative Complaints issued in Case Nos. 90-4549 and 90-8113. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1991.
Findings Of Fact In 1978, Wendy Weil obtained a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree, from the University of Bologna (Italy) , a school approved by the Board. She filed an application for licensure and paid the prescribed fee in January, 1979. She was issued a temporary license by the Board in May, 1979, pending completion of her examination which she took in August, 1979. She was advised in September, 1979, that she had failed a portion of the examination and that her temporary license had been revoked. Petitioner retook this portion of the examination in August, 1980 and was informed that she had passed in September, 1980. At the October, 1980 meeting of the Board, a decision was reached to deny Petitioner's application for licensure, and an order to this effect was issued October 16, 1980. The Board reconsidered its decision after discovering that the original investigative report contained forged affidavits unfavorable to Petitioner. The Board ordered a second investigation which was conducted in January, 1981. The report of the second investigation was presented to the Board which affirmed its earlier denial of Petitioner's application. Wendy Weil requested an administrative hearing on the Board's original denial under Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by petition dated November 6, 1980. The request for hearing was forwarded by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated January 6, 1981. Petitioner has been employed continuously at the Oakland Animal Hospital, Ft. Lauderdale, since January, 1979, except for a brief period around March, 1980. She initially served as a veterinary technician until receiving the temporary veterinary license in May, 1979. She thereafter performed veterinarian duties until October, 1979, when her temporary license was revoked and she reverted to veterinary technician status. Petitioner presented the expert testimony of six licensed veterinarians, including her employer, Dr. R. A. Johnson, owner of the Oakland Animal Hospital. This evidence established that unlicensed persons, usually referred to as veterinary technicians, are permitted to conduct a variety of medical functions under the supervision of licensed veterinarians. Such supervision does not necessitate the physical presence of the licensed veterinarian during performance of these tasks, but does require that he be immediately available. The tasks assigned veterinary technicians depend largely on individual skills. As a result of her training, Petitioner is authorized by her employer to perform any procedure which does not involve the actual practice of veterinary medicine, i.e., diagnosis, prognosis, prescribing treatment and performing surgery. While Petitioner held her temporary license she was permitted to practice veterinary medicine with the restriction that such practice be under the responsible supervision of a licensed veterinarian. Her employer, Dr. R. A. Johnson, provided this supervision. Petitioner sought the advice of Board members in October, 1979, regarding use of the title Doctor and limitations on her employment as a veterinary technician. As a result of her inquiry, Petitioner concluded that she could not properly use the title Doctor and thereafter discouraged such use by hospital personnel and clients. However, the title continued to be used on occasion in paging her within the clinic and on hospital forms. Petitioner's use of the title Doctor is associated with her degree in veterinary medicine and does not depend on grant of a license to practice. However, the use of the title Doctor in any context associated with her work at the Oakland Animal Hospital was misleading to the public and to clients of the animal hospital after her temporary license was revoked in October, 1979. Petitioner is identified in the yellow pages of the 1980 Ft. Lauderdale telephone directory as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine associated with the Oakland Animal Hospital. This ad was placed by Petitioner's employer without her knowledge or approval. Similarly, stationery and business cards which identified Petitioner as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine associated with the Oakland Animal Hospital were prepared and distributed without her approval. Some twenty coworkers and hospital clients called as witnesses by Petitioner attested to her efforts to accurately represent her status to the public. However, Respondent's witnesses Sharkey, Vilchez, Wright and Miller were clients of the hospital after October, 1979, and believed that Petitioner was a licensed veterinarian through their contacts with her. Witnesses Sharkey and Vilchez brought their pets to the Oakland Animal Hospital in March, 1980. Petitioner told Sharkey she was an intern, which Sharkey believed meant that she was a veterinarian. She did not tell Vilchez that she was or was not a licensed veterinarian, but Vilchez reasonably assumed so because Weil examined her dog, told her it had stones and that surgery would be required. Neither client saw anyone other than Petitioner except administrative personnel and technicians. However, Dr. Johnson subsequently called Sharkey at home to discuss her pet's condition. Witness Miller's dog was examined by Petitioner in April, 1980. Following an examination which included the taking of blood and fecal samples and the insertion of a swab in the animal's rectum, Petitioner informed Miller that the animal was hemorrhaging internally and should be left at the hospital for treatment. Miller assumed that Petitioner was a veterinarian as she heard her referred to as Dr. Weil, and saw no licensed veterinarian during her visit. Witness Wright, who is the mother of witness Miller, took her own dog to the Oakland Animal Hospital in April, 1980, where the animal delivered nine puppies by Caesarean section, all of which subsequently died. Wright had seen only Petitioner upon taking her pet to the Oakland Animal Hospital and was later called by Weil regarding the birth and death of the puppies. Wright therefore assumed Petitioner had performed the surgery. However, the testimony of Dr. Johnson established that he, and not Weil, had performed all surgical procedures.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be granted a license to practice veterinary medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry V. Bishins, Esquire 4548 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 William F. Casler, Esquire 6795 Gulf Boulevard St. Petersburg Beach, Florida Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher Rolle, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1602, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this cause are fashioned by an amended administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. By the first count to this complaint, Respondent is charged with knowingly employing and otherwise encouraging his wife, Nadia Said Helmy, to practice veterinary medicine in Florida without the benefit of a license. The second count to the amended administrative complaint was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. By count three, the Respondent is charged with inappropriate advertising in association with his veterinary practice.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine (Petitioner) is empowered by Chapters 455 and 474, Florida Statutes, to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in Florida. Samy H. Helmy, D.V.M (Respondent), is and has been a licensed veterinarian in Florida during the pendency of the allegations set forth in the amended administrative complaint. Respondent's wife, Nadia Said Helmy, is not now licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida, nor has she been during the time sequence contemplated by the amended administrative complaint. Respondent and his wife owned and operated Wildwood Animal Clinic in Wildwood, Florida, from a period before January 1985 until June 1985. Respondent and his wife were also the owners and operators of Citrus Fair Animal Hospital in Inverness, Florida, from January 1985 through September 19, 1986, the date upon which Respondent gave a deposition in this cause. During the time frame in which both animal clinics were open, Respondent was principally located at the Inverness facility, while his wife was working in the Wildwood facility. Nadia Helmy was working under the supervision of the Respondent in her activities at Wildwood. Sometime in May 1985, a Ms. Goheen took her cat to Dr. Leigh McBride, another veterinarian licensed to practice in Florida. Ms. Goheen claimed that her cat had been treated by a veterinarian at the Wildwood Animal Clinic. She described that veterinarian as being a female. Dr. McBride was unfamiliar with a female veterinarian at the Wildwood Animal Clinic, being of the understanding that Respondent, a man, was the practicing veterinarian in that facility. This circumstance in which it was possible that someone was practicing veterinary medicine without the benefit of a license led to an investigation of that possibility on the part of Petitioner. Eventually, A. L. Smith, an investigator for Petitioner, was assigned to undertake the investigation. Smith borrowed a cat from Dr. McBride. Stogie, the cat, had come into Dr. McBride's veterinary clinic with a broken shoulder which Dr. McBride had repaired. Following this episode, the cat walked with a slight limp. Around May 22 or 23, 1985, in furtherance of his investigation, Mr. Smith took Stogie to the Wildwood Animal Clinic. He had in mind ascertaining whether Nadia Helmy was practicing veterinary medicine without a license by seeing if she would practice on the cat. He deliberately picked an occasion in which Ms. Helmy was alone in the Wildwood Animal Clinic in his effort to determine her willingness to practice veterinary medicine. Once inside the Wildwood Animal Clinic, Mr. Smith confirmed that Nadia Helmy was the only person in attendance. Smith asked to see a veterinarian, remarking to Ms. Helmy that his cat was suffering lethargy and was limping more than usual and that he needed the cat to be examined by a veterinarian. Ms. Helmy directed Smith to take the cat to an examination room and showed him the location of that examination room. At that point, Smith said that Nadia Helmy commenced "the examination." He further described that while the cat was on the examining table ". . . she [Nadia Helmy] was looking at it and looking into its eyes." He indicated that the examination he was observing was what he would expect a veterinarian to give an animal. On the other hand, this is the first instance in which Mr. Smith had ever done undercover investigation of alleged unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine and there is no other information that has been presented which would lead to the conclusion that Mr. Smith knew what techniques would be employed in an examination conducted by a veterinarian. Under the circumstances, there being no further indication of the factual details of the examination, absent the remark concerning Nadia Helmy's looking into the eyes of the cat, it cannot be concluded what details were involved in the alleged examination process and whether in fact the kind of examination conducted by veterinarians was occurring. The telephone rang, and Nadia Helmy left the examination room and answered the phone. She was gone for. three or four minutes. Mr. Smith could hear Nadia Helmy's end of the conversation, in which she spoke in some foreign language. Nadia Helmy testified in the course of the hearing that she spoke with her husband on the telephone regarding the symptoms of Stogie, among other matters. Having examined her demeanor in the course of the hearing and all her answers provided under interrogation, no credence is afforded her version of the telephone conversation. Consequently, no facts are found as to the nature of that conversation. Nonetheless, it is concluded that a conversation was held between Nadia Helmy and Respondent. Following the telephone conversation, Nadia Helmy returned to the examination room and looked at the cat again. Mr. Smith admitted that the cat seemed to be better and Ms. Helmy agreed with him and stated that the cat was just suffering from extended travel. Nadia Helmy said that the cat would be better after returning home. This was in response to Mr. Smith's representation that he was travelling between Tallahassee and Naples, Florida. Mr. Smith described the remarks by Nadia Helmy, concerning the fact that the cat was suffering from extended travel to be some form of diagnosis. Again, it not being identified that the investigator could speak to matters of what constitutes a diagnosis and the nature of those remarks by Nadia Helmy not being clearly a form of diagnosis which might be recognized by a lay person, the remarks are not received as stating a diagnosis. Throughout the exchange between Mr. Smith and Nadia Helmy on the date that the cat was brought to the Wildwood Animal Clinic, Mr. Smith referred to Nadia Helmy as "doctor." Although Ms. Helmy did not correct Mr. Smith in his reference, she did not affirmatively state that she was in fact a veterinarian licensed by Florida to practice veterinary medicine. In the course of the events in the examination room, Nadia Helmy did not take the temperature of the cat, did not take a case history on the cat or provide any form of treatment. Following the conversation in the examination room, Investigator Smith asked Nadia Helmy "how much" for her service. She replied five dollars. Nadia Helmy gave Investigator Smith a receipt for the payment of the five dollars. A copy of the receipt may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. It is on a form of the Wildwood Animal Clinic, which has a portion related to the character of service. This portion of the receipt is not filled out. The only thing that is reflected is the amount of charges and Mr. Smith's name and a date, May 22, 1985. Under these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the five dollar charge was for provision of veterinary services. After leaving Wildwood Animal Clinic, Investigator Smith went to Citrus Fair Animal Hospital at Inverness. While there, he discussed with Respondent the facts of his visit to the Wildwood Animal Clinic and the nature of events related to Respondent's wife and the fact that the investigation was in answer to allegations made about the wife's practice of veterinary medicine. In the course of this conversation, Respondent stated that his wife was a graduate of veterinary medicine and was qualified to examine animals and run the clinic but that he did all of the surgery. He stated that his wife was qualified to give shots and to determine what was wrong with animals. Concerning the wife's actions, Respondent stated that his wife was too busy raising three children to get all the classes and under this circumstance hadn't passed an examination. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, the wife was completely qualified in that she was a graduate of veterinary medicine school. This acknowledgment by Respondent as to the general arrangement between the Respondent and his wife concerning the operation of the Wildwood Animal Clinic does not revitalize the Petitioner's claim that the wife was practicing veterinary medicine on the specific day in question. Evidence was presented in the course of the hearing concerning the fact that Nadia Helmy would not treat an animal of one Ralph Benfield when the animal had been offered for treatment at the Wildwood Animal Clinic. However, this situation occurred at a time when the Wildwood Animal Clinic was being phased out and it is not clear what significance that fact had in the decision by Nadia Helmy not to offer assistance to the animal. In January 1985, Respondent entered into a one-year advertising contract with the Citrus County Chronicle, a local newspaper. This was for the placement of advertisements pertaining to his Citrus Fair Animal Hospital. One of the ads placed in the paper, at the instigation of the Respondent, can be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. The date of the advertisement is March 31, 1985. It advertised free fecal check and a free office visit, but did not contain the 72-hour disclaimer language contemplated by Section 455.24, Florida Statutes. Having been advised of this problem related to the lack of disclaimer, Respondent, by correspondence of August 26, 1985, acknowledged his violation and modified the format of his advertising. The letter of August 26, 1985, and the new format of advertising may be found as Petitioner's second exhibit admitted into evidence. This letter had been dispatched based upon a complaint which was filed on August 9, 1985, by a Dr. Asaad. This led to action by the Petitioner attempting to have Respondent rectify the problems with his advertising. Following the circumstance in which Respondent had been made aware of the problem with his advertising, he took steps to ensure that the advertising was in compliance with law by contacting the Citrus County Chronicle. Although the employee of the Citrus County Chronicle who testified in the course of the final hearing was uncertain about whether the March 31, 1985, advertising copy was specifically approved by the Respondent, it was the practice of the newspaper to provide Respondent with a proof prior to publication. Circumstantially, it is concluded that Respondent did not oppose or question the acceptability of the March 31, 1985, advertising. Support for this position is found in the fact that Respondent conceded his violation by his August 25, 1985, correspondence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, T. E. Watson, was licensed as a veterinarian in Florida under license number VM 0000957, and the Petitioner, Board of Veterinary Medicine, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in this state. On February 20, 1986, the Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered an Indictment charging Respondent with six counts of mail fraud. The counts relating to Respondent were part of a thirty- three count Indictment of eight defendants. Only six of the counts pertained to Respondent. After trial by jury, on June 19, 1986, Respondent was found not guilty of two counts of mail fraud but guilty of four. In each of these four counts, Numbers 7, 8, 20, & 21, Respondent was found guilty of mail fraud involving a horse. He was sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment in the Federal Prison Camp at Eglin A.F.B., Florida. The mail fraud engaged in by Respondent involved a scheme by him and others to artificially inflate the book value of certain horses, then have the horses destroyed, and collect insurance in an amount in excess of the actual value of the horse. This activity constitutes misconduct which relates to the practice of veterinary medicine and reflects adversely on the Respondent's ability to practice veterinary medicine. On October 25, 1988, the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Examining Board entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order finding that Respondent had been found guilty of mail fraud as alleged, supra, and revoked his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine license. While incarcerated, on September 26, 1988, Respondent submitted a letter to the Board in which he outlined the facts and circumstances leading up to his involvement in the misconduct alleged. He contends in this letter, as he did at the hearing, that he was merely an honest horse farmer who purchased several animals from the individuals who thereafter killed them in the furtherance of their fraudulent scheme to defraud the insurance company. Respondent further claims that when he confronted these individuals, they threatened him and his family with bodily harm and even acted out a portion of that threat. Respondent claims he had no one to turn to as the insurance company representatives were involved in the scheme and the local law enforcement officials were inadequate. As a result, he went along with the scheme but did not actively participate. In support of his position, he refers to the account statements he attached to the letter he sent to the Board which purport to show that he made no profit on any of the animals involved in the counts of which he was convicted. Since he made no profit, he claims, he can be found guilty of no crime. This documentation is of little probative value, however, since there is no source material to support its accuracy or authenticity. Respondent claimed at hearing that his conviction was based on "perjured, prejudicial, and impeached testimony" and that the newly discovered evidence he has gathered and submitted to Federal officials will prove his innocence. This evidence was not presented at the hearing, however, and in his letter to the Department of Professional Regulation, he admits to knowingly being a party to the fraud. However, he claims, his participation was neither intentional or willing. The jury which heard his evidence was satisfied he was guilty, however, and nothing has been submitted here which would cause that judgement to be questioned. His request for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence was denied, and the Parole Commission has declined to modify his conviction or sentence. Respondent moved his wife and four sons from Florida to Arkansas in 1974 to follow a lifelong dream to be a farmer. It was only after several years that he got into the horse breeding business which resulted in his difficulties. He has been engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine for 30 years. Numerous individuals including clients, civic officials, colleagues, neighbors, and business people who uniformly describe him as an honest, trustworthy and dedicated veterinarian and individual were surprised and dismayed by his involvement in this matter. Respondent undoubtedly has an excellent reputation in both the geographic and professional communities in which he operates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, T. E. Watson's license to practice veterinary medicine in Florida be suspended for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Board of Veterinary Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura F. Gaffney, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 T. E. Watson, D.V.M. 5004 7th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Linda Biedermann Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
